If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used. Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short... if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85 distance, it should be OK ! Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything... See old threads for arguments on this... I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around) would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps, loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded the beercan more firmly in the rules. What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound tracks! This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km longer for each tp used. Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance. Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so. Ian "Denis" wrote in message ... Mark James Boyd wrote: The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used. Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short... if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85 distance, it should be OK ! Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything... See old threads for arguments on this... I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around) would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps, loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:31:17 UTC, "tango4"
wrote: : Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so. No committee has ever voted to make things less complicated. Ian -- |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
tango4 wrote:
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded the beercan more firmly in the rules. What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound tracks! This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km longer for each tp used. Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance. Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the electronic declarations won't? -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
tango4 wrote:
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded the beercan more firmly in the rules. Beer can turnpoints were already in use the USA long before GPS came along, when we were using cameras in our contests. It was not a new invention, as least for us. It was much easier to use (pilots and photo interpertation) than the 90 degree sector with cameras and GPS. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Too each his own I guess. As a pilot who has managed to accumulate all the
minor badges with the little shiny stones on without actually having a claim turned down for documentation reasons my approach would be to state the TP styles in use, both 'distances' to the actual tps and the shorter version if BC's are used. Ian "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message ... tango4 wrote: Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded the beercan more firmly in the rules. What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound tracks! This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km longer for each tp used. Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance. Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the electronic declarations won't? -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Denis wrote:
PapaIndia wrote: Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting? http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/...nsfrom2004.pdf and now there are the minutes: http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/...inutes2004.pdf -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
16 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 17th 04 12:37 AM |
AVSIM News Update | Eric Lunston | Simulators | 16 | August 15th 04 04:49 AM |
Weak Dollar (Bad News - Good News) | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | January 27th 04 03:06 AM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |